Re: [Mono-list] Mono Packages split.
On Thu, 2004-08-05 at 19:05 -0400, Miguel de Icaza wrote: Hello, We are having a debate about the current packaging strategy: so far we have split everything into small chunks that have correct dependency information. Although this is useful for folks that want to get very granular setups, the problem is that people have to download 20+ packages to get a complete Mono install. An intermediary hack was to create a mono-all.zip file that contains everything and have people download that. My feeling is that we should go back to the simpler two way split: mono and mono-devel packages. What do people think? How would this affect source distribution of Mono? Would the entire source code for the compiler, runtime, class library, XSP, mod_mono, GTK#, MonoDevelop, etc, be lumped into a single tar.gz? Would it affect the CVS structure? Or does this only concern binary distribution in the formats provided by Novell? (The RPMs listed on the mono download page.) -- Fabian Fagerholm [EMAIL PROTECTED] signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: [Mono-list] Mono Packages split.
On Thu, 2004-08-05 at 20:36 -0400, Duncan Mak wrote: On Thu, 2004-08-05 at 19:45, Todd Berman wrote: Why isnt is possible to create a 'mono' and 'mono-devel' package that is basically a stub that deps on what would go in those. That way you get the best of both worlds. We already have something similar, we have mono-complete and mono-complete-devel. The problem is that, removing mono-complete does not remove the packages that it depends on, as it is simply an empty (meta) package. I am totally clueless about the rpm format, but you cant somehow specify some uninstall script/hook/whatever that uninstalls all the packages when the -complete or -complete-devel is removed? --Todd ___ Mono-list maillist - [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.ximian.com/mailman/listinfo/mono-list
Re: [Mono-list] Mono Packages split.
I dont think requiring X to install mono is sane. --Todd I agree. I also would be all for combined packages again if X was not required. I use mod_mono on X'less servers. -Michael ___ Mono-list maillist - [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.ximian.com/mailman/listinfo/mono-list
RE: [Mono-list] Mono Packages split.
For environments like S/390 the use of X will be quite limited: most of the work will be web services type stuff. A frill-free package would be great . Neale ___ Mono-list maillist - [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.ximian.com/mailman/listinfo/mono-list
Re: [Mono-list] Mono Packages split.
On Thu, Aug 05, 2004 at 07:05:05PM -0400, Miguel de Icaza wrote: Hello, We are having a debate about the current packaging strategy: so far we have split everything into small chunks that have correct dependency information. Although this is useful for folks that want to get very granular setups, the problem is that people have to download 20+ packages to get a complete Mono install. An intermediary hack was to create a mono-all.zip file that contains everything and have people download that. My feeling is that we should go back to the simpler two way split: mono and mono-devel packages. Personally, I would prefer the smaller number of packages. But, I can see the reason for the multitude of packages for the OS distributions. So, with that said, I would recommend a flag in the spec files to build it either way, with the default being the 2 packages. Now, if I can just figure out how to generate the daily builds - Dennis What do people think? Miguel. ___ Mono-list maillist - [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.ximian.com/mailman/listinfo/mono-list ___ Mono-list maillist - [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.ximian.com/mailman/listinfo/mono-list
Re: [Mono-list] Mono Packages split.
On Thu, 2004-08-05 at 19:45, Todd Berman wrote: Why isnt is possible to create a 'mono' and 'mono-devel' package that is basically a stub that deps on what would go in those. That way you get the best of both worlds. We already have something similar, we have mono-complete and mono-complete-devel. The problem is that, removing mono-complete does not remove the packages that it depends on, as it is simply an empty (meta) package. Duncan. ___ Mono-list maillist - [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.ximian.com/mailman/listinfo/mono-list
Re: [Mono-list] Mono Packages split.
Miguel de Icaza wrote: Hello, We are having a debate about the current packaging strategy: so far we have split everything into small chunks that have correct dependency information. Although this is useful for folks that want to get very granular setups, the problem is that people have to download 20+ packages to get a complete Mono install. An intermediary hack was to create a mono-all.zip file that contains everything and have people download that. My feeling is that we should go back to the simpler two way split: mono and mono-devel packages. What do people think? Miguel. Hello Why don't we have a BIN file that installs all the necessary RPM or source-code for Mono?? Executing this BIN file would install all the package necessary to run Mono in Tipical Mode, Full Mode or Costume Mode (chossing all the optional packages). With this kind of installation we can choose if we want to install the Devel Packages or the Common Packages or all packages. This feature is allready implemented in many applications in Linux like Zend IDE. The mono-all.zip is the most aproximate that we have from this king of installation because it installs all Mono Packages (Full Mode). (()) Paulo Aboim Pinto Odivelas - Portugal ___ Mono-list maillist - [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.ximian.com/mailman/listinfo/mono-list
Re: [Mono-list] Mono Packages split.
Hi all, Being able to download mono and just install it and have it work is a huge plus. The jdk installer which is a bin file is good at that. Downloading seperate packages might turn some people off. cheers trent Paulo Aboim Pinto wrote: Miguel de Icaza wrote: Hello, We are having a debate about the current packaging strategy: so far we have split everything into small chunks that have correct dependency information. Although this is useful for folks that want to get very granular setups, the problem is that people have to download 20+ packages to get a complete Mono install. An intermediary hack was to create a mono-all.zip file that contains everything and have people download that. My feeling is that we should go back to the simpler two way split: mono and mono-devel packages. What do people think? Miguel. Hello Why don't we have a BIN file that installs all the necessary RPM or source-code for Mono?? Executing this BIN file would install all the package necessary to run Mono in Tipical Mode, Full Mode or Costume Mode (chossing all the optional packages). With this kind of installation we can choose if we want to install the Devel Packages or the Common Packages or all packages. This feature is allready implemented in many applications in Linux like Zend IDE. The mono-all.zip is the most aproximate that we have from this king of installation because it installs all Mono Packages (Full Mode). (()) Paulo Aboim Pinto Odivelas - Portugal ___ Mono-list maillist - [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.ximian.com/mailman/listinfo/mono-list ___ Mono-list maillist - [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.ximian.com/mailman/listinfo/mono-list
